Villarama: 'I do not want Charter change before 2010'
abs-cbnNEWS.com | 12/23/2008 10:00 AM
Printer-friendly version | 
Send to friend | 
Share your views
These are excerpts from our interview with Court of Appeals Justice Martin Villarama Jr., the leading contender to the Supreme Court. Our researchers, Purple S. Romero, conducted the interview in October.
You are said to be the civil society’s bet for the next Supreme Court justice. Why do you think you enjoy their trust?
Villarama: It must be because of the recent high-profile cases I’ve decided on. My decisions on the Guerrero, Meralco and Salapuddin cases have all been splashed in the papers. In the Guerrero case, I ruled that the information case was filed without proper preliminary investigation.
(Note: The Guerrero case was about Berlin Guerrero, Protestant pastor at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines. Accused of murder, he was reportedly abducted and tortured by the Philippine National Police. Guerrero’s lawyers were former Sen. Jovito Salonga and Emilio Capulong)
I was reversed by the Supreme Court in the Meralco case. I ruled that Meralco should first undergo a penal audit before the ERC (Energy Regulatory Commission) approves an increase in rates. Two years after, on December 6, 2006, the Supreme Court reversed my decision. (Note: Justice Minita Chico-Nazario penned the decision) But look at what’s happening now, the Supreme Court is looking at the books of Meralco as a result of the Meralco-GSIS case.
Secretary [Raul] Gonzalez reversed the recommendations of Zuño which pushed for the filing of a case against [former Basilan Rep. Gerry] Salapuddin in connection with the death of [Wahab] Akbar. I granted the petition to re-file the case of murder against Salapuddin
I granted the writ of amparo in the cases of [Romulos] Robiños and [Ryan] Supan. But up until now they couldn’t be found. Karapatan rejoiced in my decision.
Before you joined the Court of Appeals, what position did you hold? Did you ever join private practice?
Villarama: I was executive judge of Pasig RTC. I decided the case of Abet Antonio, who was accused of killing basketball player Tuadles. I said it was a case of murder. The SC downgraded it to homicide, but Puno and Davide said in their opinion that it was murder.
I was there for more than 11 years. I also taught law at MLQ (Manuel L. Quezon University) and CCP (City Colleges of the Philippines.)
And now you’re aiming to be the next Supreme Court justice.
Villarama: Well, it’s a policy that the five most senior CA justices would be asked if they would like to apply for the Supreme Court. The most senior is PJ Vasquez, but he begged off. He’s due to retire on January 6, 2010. I am the third most senior.
Just in case you become the next Supreme Court justice and the first case that will be handed to you is a political case, would you participate in it? Would you consider inhibiting?
Villarama: Inhibitions are personal decisions. I would first study the case, but if I feel I cannot bring justice to my fellowmen, when I can't sleep, when I have stomach spasms, I would not participate in the case.
Utang na loob is a very Filipino trait. Wouldn’t anyone be a little pressured to pay their debt of gratitude to the one who appointed them at the Supreme Court?
Villarama: I wouldn’t be pressured. I’ve been here for 22 years. I could retire tomorrow with full benefits. Besides, history will judge you.
The following are excerpts from the Judicial and Bar Council public interview with Villarama conducted in early December.
What can you contribute to the Court? How will you improve the judiciary?
Villarama: The appointment of SC justices should be lodged in the Supreme Court. The SC by 2/3 of the vote should determine the choice of justices...Implement small-claims courts nationwide and strengthen adjudication in barangay level.
How do you intend to meet pressures?
Villarama: There will always be requests but as long as you don’t succumb to them, it would be okay. In the end, I’ll decide on my own.
There’s a growing sentiment to amend the Constitution. Will you recommend amendment of provisions on the economy?
Villarama: The government should always be there [in ownership of public utilities and utilization of natural resources]. The suggested amendment is not urgent at this point.
Are you in favor of the revival of death penalty?
Villarama: I am in favor of the restoration of death penalty. Anyway, the powers of the president are there—commutation, reprieve.
What should be the manner of amending the Constitution?
Villarama: I prefer voting separately in a constituent assembly. I also do not want any Charter change before 2010.
